Talk:Katz centrality
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | The contents of the Alpha centrality page were merged into Katz centrality on 30 April 2023. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
Request status change
[edit]This article may no longer be an orphan as it has more than 1 and at least 3 incoming links. 14.140.149.65 (talk) 07:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)R june
What happens when α=0?
[edit]The section "Measuring Katz Centrality" states, "Each path or connection between a pair of nodes is assigned a weight determined by α and the distance between nodes as α^(d − 1)." Looking at the summation formula I don't see how α could ever be raised to a 0th power. However, the Junker text does state "an α of zero results in a centrality that is equivalent to the degree centrality" and I don't see how α=0 could result in anything but a centrality of 0. If α is somehow raised to a 0th power when k=1 then I understand the equivalence but again I don't see how α^0 can arise. Could someone expand the article to clarify the α=0 situation?
Drberg1000 (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Contradiction with Centrality page
[edit]Hi, this page's double-summation defintion uses (A^k)_{ji}, but the definition on the Centrality page uses (A^k)_{ij}, e.g. the subscripts are reversed. Only one can be correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.93.240 (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- True: fixed the subscripts to match the next formula. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:7BD7:2F01:38C4:40F3:5F35:B9AD (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Contradiction between sections
[edit]I may be missing something, but there seems to be a contradiction between the "Measuring Katz Centrality" prose and the "Mathematical Formulation". The former section explains that immediate neighbors are penalized by factor \alpha^0. The latter section indicates that immediate neighbors (k=1) are penalized by factor \alpha^1. I haven't researched this thoroughly, but it seems that while \alpha^0 for immediate neighbors is intuitively desirable, \alpha^1 is more amenable to a linear algebra solution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.93.240 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- True: just fixed the section (checked in Katz's paper). --Toobaz (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)